Coronation (Bud) Lite?

So, hard on the heels of his late mother’s platinum jubilee and then funeral we are getting ready to celebrate the coronation of His Majesty King Charles the III’s coronation. I confess myself less than enthusiastic.

“What’s this?” I hear you cry “Is the Limey looney turning republican in his old age?”. No, I am loyal to His Majesty as I was to his mother, but he is not making it easy. I fear he will lose support from many people who are dyed in the wool monarchists if he carries on the way he is going and gain little if any support from anyone else. Let me explain.

Firstly, a few words on why I think my red-blooded American friends at BW.com should care if the kingdoms of the United Kingdom remain kingdoms. I can see why you might not, or even welcome the idea of us becoming a republic. This, I feel, would be a mistake. If Britain were to ditch the monarchy it would not become a true republic like the United States. It would (at best) merely become another collectivist top-down state like France or Germany, with some sort of elected President as head of state. Those who have long campaigned to get rid of the monarchy here are no friends of the US, indeed, they are lefties who hate America. They also hate what Britain is and has been and turning us into a republic would be a huge step towards remodelling Britain into the leftist Utopia they think they will create. A British republic would not automatically be an enemy of the US, but it would certainly be less of a friend and ally.

Why do I think the republicans here are more likely to succeed under Charles III than they were under Elizabeth II? Firstly, they’re trying harder. After a little duck back caused by the strong public reaction against the few small outbursts of republican “protest” in the wake of the Late Queen’s passing, they have started to reassert themselves. Public appearances by The King are consistently met with small gaggles of (mostly) old white middle class lefties bearing yellow placards with “Not My King” in black. The media dutifully frame the pictures to maximise the impact and hide the fact that these cranks are a handful compared to the thousands who have turned out to cheer Charles. In the old Queen’s time, there were little puffs of republican activism now and then, but since her passing it has certainly stepped up a gear or two.

One problem we face is (as is often the case) very similar to the situation in the US. The legacy media (and the metropolitan internationalist elites generally) do not reflect the views and attitudes of the population at large. There is far less support for the monarchy among them than in the general population. The media cover the issue as if republicans and monarchists in this country were roughly equal, like the main parties, rather than a vociferous mini group on one side and bulk of the population on the other. One problem is that up until quite recently the monarchy, like motherhood and the gender binary was not something that anyone thought needed defending, it was a fact of life. We have recently seen various extreme positions with no real support from the general public (reparations for slavery and the idea that a man in a dress is as much a woman as a woman to name just two) move to centre stage and become “a thing”, it could easily happen again.

Now to The King’s own actions and how they may not be helping.

Firstly, let’s look at the coronation itself. This is an elaborate religious ceremony with elements that go back over a thousand years. Like the monarchy itself it has changed over the centuries, new elements have come in, as others have been dropped (one of the less obvious things ancient institutions is that if they don’t change, they don’t get to be ancient!). I doubt if any two coronations have ever been exactly the same. However, it seems as if a desperate desire to be seen as sensitive to current financial difficulties and “relevant to 21^st century Britain” is going to make this “Coronation Lite”, (or should that be “Coronation Bud Lite”)?

As My London put it.

“It is less than two weeks until King Charles’ Coronation on Saturday, May 6, and plans are well and truly underway for the big weekend. A king or queen’s coronation is steeped in tradition centuries old, but in the modern day, not all traditions seem appropriate or necessary.

It is no surprise then that some of the traditions and rituals are being reconsidered ahead of King Charles’ Coronation. Lots of people have called for a toned-down version of the traditional ceremony due to the cost of living crisis, with the monarch massively scaling down the grandeur.”

For instance, it is entirely appropriate, indeed necessary, that representatives of faith communities that are much bigger parts of Britain’s population now than they were at the time of Elizabeth II’s coronation in 1953 should be (and be seen to be) present at the ceremony. There should certainly be a Muslim, Hindu and Sikh presence, just as there was a Roman Catholic and Jewish presence in 1953. Britain has had an officially recognised Chief Rabbi since 1704, there should be equivalent positions for the other faiths. However, Charles III has long said he wants to be Defender of Faiths, rather than Defender of The Faith* and has ruffled feathers by pushing for diverse faith leaders to have an active role in the coronation. This is one of those wishy washy “nice” ideas that seeks to spread peace, but actually causes conflict. While faith leaders may (and hopefully do) get along, their faiths are, by definition, mutually exclusive. The coronation is a solemn Christian, specifically Anglican religious ceremony, part baptism, part wedding, part inauguration. Anglican Bishops and priests officiate at the coronation of the Head of the Anglican Church. It would be as inappropriate to give an active role  in this to a Imam, Granthi, or Rabbi as it would be to have an Anglican Vicar take an active role at an Aqiqah, Amrit Sanskar, or Bar Mitzvah.

*Historical note. Henry VIII was first given the title Fidei Defensor, Defender of the Faith, by Pope Leo X in 1521 for his writing the Assertio Septum Sacramentoram (Defence of the Seven Sacraments). Of course, when he excommunicated Henry VIII for breaking with Rome in 1530 Pope Paul III took away the title. However, the English Parliament made it one of the monarch’s titles as Supreme Governor of the English Church, in 1543, it has been so ever since. To this day our coins include the letters D.G. Reg F.D. standing for Dei Gratia Regina Fidei Defensor, by the Grace of God Queen, Defender of the Faith. On new coins the Reg will be replaced by Rex, for King. 

Apart from the tussles over representation and roles, the whole thing looks like it’s going to be a bit, well, cheap. The coronation is (or should be) a huge affair, the ceremony itself traditionally lasts for over four hours, in 1953 rank upon rank of temporary seating were built and over 8,000 people were in Westminster Abbey. It’s a big deal. This costs money. Understandably, in the hard economic times of post-covid (or rather post-lockdown) Britain there is a desire to save money. Fair enough, but there is the counter argument that in tough times people want spectacle.

Elizabeth II’s coronation was in 1953. Britain was still reeling from the Second World War, we still had rationing, times were hard, and yet her coronation was a massive affair. It’s all a bit up in the air, but I have seen reports that there may be as few as 2,000 people in attendance, and that it might last only an hour. If this is true, given that a standard High Anglican sung Eucharist service is a good hour long, then how the actual coronation (which includes a Eucharist) could be shrunk to an hour is hard to see. Trimming down from 4 hours might be in order, but a 75% reduction? No, just no.

Cutting back on the coronation might be meant to deflect criticism, but I doubt it will. It’s a bit like defence spending, those who complain loudly about it do so more out of principle than practicality. The nay sayers who would complain at the coronation costing £100 million would complain about it costing £100, or any figure in between. My gut instinct is that giving the nation a Poundshop coronation will upset and annoy many loyal supporters of the monarchy, while placating few, if any critics. 

Let me give you an example. If you’ve read some of my other posts you may know that I am associated with one of the Chapels Royal, the monarch’s ecclesiastical household. Usually for a coronation the choirs from St George’s Chapel Windsor, the Savoy Chapel, St James’s Palace, and Hampton Court Palace would all come together at Westminster Abbey in one massed coir. With the “coronation lite” we are having this is not happening. Scores of choristers are disappointed, denied an experience that would have been a highlight not just of their careers, but their lives. Finding out they weren’t going to be singing at the coronation in a press release, rather than the choir establishments being told in advance only added insult to injury.

A sort of ham-fisted attempt at egalitarianism is also eating away at the dignity, grandeur, and validity of the coronation, and therefore, by extension, the monarchy itself. The number of Dukes and other peers of the realm in attendance is to be limited. Details are still unclear, but it has been reported that even the most senior of the 24 non royal Dukes in the UK, Edward Fitzalan-Howard, 18^th Duke of Norfolk, is not invited (this seems odd, unlikely even, as the hereditary Earl Marshall of England he’s organising the bloody thing!). Certainly David Manners, 11^th Duke of Rutland, has been quoted as saying he doesn’t understand why he’s not been invited. The peers that are attending have been told not to wear their scarlet and ermine robes of estate and wear morning suits or lounge suits instead. *Rolls eyes and groans* And as for limiting the number of dukes, the most senior rank of the peerage, people whose family trees are the very history of our nation…well, we wouldn’t want too many people who owe their positions and titles to a mere accident of birth at the coronation of an hereditary monarch would we?

Yup, there’s the point. As Rick Aviles said in the Cannonball Run, “If you gonna be a bear…be a GRIZZLY!”. Charles III’s coronation, like his late mother’s funeral, could and should be a great moment that introduces new generations the magic and mystique of monarchy. The sumptuous but solemn ritual should underline the centuries of continuity, it should be enthralling and awesome. It should, of course, include those who have more recently come to this country and make them proud to be a part of it, but not to the exclusion of those whose families have been here for centuries. Pandering to the left and trying to make it egalitarian is silly and could be counterproductive. Every little concession to the dinner party Platos and Mickey Mouse Marxists who want to re-invent this country will only embolden them and weaken the monarchy. It feels almost as if His Majesty is slightly embarrassed by the very things that make him King. Which brings me to The King’s own thoughts and views.

I will not rehearse and review his views here, his views themselves are not really the point. It is the very fact that we do know so much about what he thinks on various issues that is the issue. The role of constitutional monarch is a delicate one. The King is King of the whole nation, rich and poor, black and white, Anglican and atheist, Jew and gentile, men and women, gay, straight, left and right. He is even the King of and for those who squeal loudly that he is not their King. King Charles’s instinct to be inclusive is spot on, even if his way of doing it may not be.

Naturally, it is fairly safe to assume that the monarch is a monarchist, but beyond that we shouldn’t really know his political views. A huge part of the success of the much lamented Elizabeth II was that she kept her cards so close to her chest that you didn’t even know she as holding cards. People on the left might assume she disagreed with them, while right-wingers might assume that she did agree with them, but neither group ever had those assumptions confirmed. We knew she loved her Corgis and was mad about horses and horse racing, and was partial to a Gin and Dubonnet, but her views on “issues” were a closed book. She was able to be the unifying figure beyond politics that the monarch has to be. Not so Charles III. Perhaps he feels the things he has spoken out on are not contentious issues, but this would argue a degree of naiveté on his part, issues are issues because they’re contentious.

Suffice it to say that having a King who believes in the climate change “emergency” and who has spoken on a WEF video does not sit well with me, or with many of his natural supporters. As our head of state diplomatic considerations meant his late mother had to entertain many nasty people as part of her job. In her time she hosted the likes of Nicolae Ceaușescu, Robert Mugabe, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Barrack Obama, but she did not voluntarily snuggle up to low rent Bond villains like Claus Schwab or lecture people on their carbon footprint. Even if, now he is King, Charles says nothing at all (and he shows no signs of that) we know too much about his views already. No doubt this is what happens when the Heir to the Throne goes to Cambridge in the 1960s!

Perhaps I am being an overcritical, curmudgeonly old sod and the coronation will not be the stripped down cringeathon that I fear. It will no doubt still look great, well great-ish (Dukes in lounge suits…eughh!) and some things are being kept, despite being contentious. The Queen Consort’s rod symbolising equity and mercy, topped with a dove and made of ivory will still be used, as it has been since it was made for James II’s queen, Mary of Modena, in 1685. I’m no Elephant scientist, but I’m pretty sure the elephant the ivory came from would have been dead by now anyway and abandoning or destroying a precious 330+ year old object would not bring a single elephant back to life. The worrying thing is that it was reportedly HRH Prince William who objected to the use of an ivory artefact…

Who knows? Maybe in time the House of Windsor will save the Mickey Mouse Marxists the trouble and disappear in a cloud of platitudes and self-doubt.